Posted on 04/15/2017 6:22:19 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
But part of the phenomenon long precedes YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and social media dictating the news. It's the American cult of victimization
You’ve been snookered folks! By that poor elderly doctor who was involuntarily dragged from his seat, had his face smashed in, and was beaten unconscious by the evil airport security at the behest of United Airlines.
Because there’s no evidence any of that was true. It was in fact a premeditated temper tantrum gone viral, comprising one 69-year-old Vietnamese-American David Dao, a medical doctor who lost his license, planning a lawsuit from the moment United first politely asked him to give up his seat. He demanded to be dragged, did an excellent impersonation of Ned Beatty’s character in that horrific scene in Deliverance, and struck his lip on an armrest. From the many videos taken by numerous passengers, obviously from numerous angles, there’s no evidence of a beating, a “serious” concussion, or bodily damage beyond that lip.
Not interested, though.
Nice article you found.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/opinions/i-got-bumped-from-a-flight-then-i-sued-opinion-stone/
‘Judging from the video, which may not tell the full story, it doesn’t look like the people who escorted the United passenger off his flight gave him the immediate written instructions they are required to do by law. It also does not look like they told him about his compensation rights.’
Since they didn’t follow procedure, it just might be enough for a judge that even though they don’t like disrespect for authority (who are out of uniform in jeans and a jacket) like sloppiness and not informing the public of their rights even less.
If you’ll notice, I didn’t say Munoz admitted the flight was not oversold. It was a United spokesperson who made that admission.
There are two schools of thought on whether United had the legal right to drag Dao from the plane. Just because you buy into one school doesn’t mean everyone else does. A very strong case can be made that they didn’t. Dao certainly didn’t meet any of the ToS criteria for being kicked of after boarding—a point his legal team would love to argue, no doubt.
Point two. If you are going to specifically refer to a FReeper, it is good etiquette to ping that person in the post you make.
Had you been here before, you'd have known that.
Which makes me think you're not entirely truthful in what you claim. Which, in turn, makes other commentary suspect.
Yesterday Medved was crying about the absurdity of the comparison. I disagree. In both cases the situations where brought to a head from the totality of wrong headed policies.
"When the target of a coercive action by some flavor of law enforcement, in this case not even real cops but airport cops, performing outside the bounds of their duties by enforcing one side of a contract dispute by beating the crap out of someone who is likely in the right, I believe it is the right and indeed duty of a citizen to resist the power of the state."
This is where the rubber meets the road. Why deploy low level security to handle this "disruptive passenger"? I have my suspicions. Despite the fact Dao was in no way "disruptive", every other time I recall seeing a passenger forcibly removed it's been by actual law enforcment.
I've already conceded this point repeatedly to you for purposes of argument.
It doesn't matter. They have the right to remove someone from their plane, even if breaching the ToS.
Buying an airline ticket is purchasing a service. You only have the right to money damages if they breach their contract and order you off of their plane.
You don't have the legal right to stay in your seat and forcefully resist the owner of the aircraft removing you, as if the seat you are sitting in was a parcel of land you owned or a leasehold in an apartment.
LB has correctly analyzed the situation and the Conditions of Carriage (COC).
MTNB - sorry, bad, very bad analysis and failure to consider United’s own statements.
As you quoted from “Rule 4.G.” (actually, it is Rule 5.G.) if it was an overbooking situation, rule 25 would govern. This was not an overbooking situation, per admission by United’s CEO statement several days ago:
“On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United’s gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.”
Also, for clarity - Rule 5.G. is the only reference in the COC to “overbooking” - then referencing such situations being “governed by Rule 25” which in its initial paragraph states:
“Denied Boarding (U.S.A./Canadian Flight Origin) - When there is an Oversold UA flight that originates in the U.S.A. or Canada, the following provisions apply...”
If you can follow it this far, note that the term is “Oversold UA flight” - a defined term in the COC. The term is defined:
“Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.”
By their own admission, the gate agents were approached by crewmembers only after all passengers had boarded. Well after the “prescribed check-in time.” This was not an oversold flight - period.
For clarity - Rule 25 is relevant only before boarding, again - the CEO admitted boarding was completed. Period - end of story on Rule 25. Your attempt to turn around and say Rule 4.G (sic) applies without regard to whether or not they have boarded flies in the face of its own language. Can’t help if you still cannot understand that concept.
If I'm UAL, I'd consider making delivery of that written plicy becomes part of the check-in, ticket purchase ordeal, just to make sure EVERYBODY gets the writtten notice, and relieve the employees of the case-by-case burden. Similar to car rental, you get a few pages of fine print.
-- Since they didn't follow procedure, it just might be enough for a judge that even though they don't like disrespect for authority (who are out of uniform in jeans and a jacket) like sloppiness and not informing the public of their rights even less. --
I just don't think the court is going to credit Dao with a right to stand his ground contrary to an order from the flight crew. Like when the judge tells you to shut up, he'd rather you shut up so he doesn't have to order the bailiff to cart you away for contempt.
You may have noticed, in that article, Stone says the airline has the power to remove you from your seat. I don't see that rule changing on account of Dao. When the airline screws up, the person on the other end of the screwup is entitled to money damages.
AGREE. He damn sure would not pull his defiance in Ho Chi Minh City.
The flight crew is in uniform. Dao refused to follow flight crew instructions. The judge likely prefers passengers to follow flight crew instructions, even if the flight crew is breaching the contract. I don't think the fact that the goons had to be called works in Dao's favor with most judges. It may fly with the jury, depending on how the arguments are delivered.
It’s true that we’re just covering and re-covering old ground. I’ve already spelled out my response to your position. I will, however, do it one more time.
If United wants the option of kicking a well-behaved, legally-boarded passenger off the plane, so as to give his/her seat to someone else, this must be spelled out in their ToS. Iow, they must
tell passengers in advance that being boarded and seated, etc., is no guarantee of remaining on the plane. If United decides they want your seat for someone else, you’re SOL. Your only choice is whether to meekly comply, or to be dragged out bleeding and brain injured.
If they spell all that out in their ToS, in pls5in, intelligible language, then I’m all for it. Honesty is always the best policy.
Is it better to beg forgiveness than ask permission?
Old Dr. Dao in a cardigan and 40 year old tie tells judge and jury that if he had just been provided his written rights and properly instructed about how to obtain compensation as required by law, it could have all been avoided, instead they all went DEFCON 1 and he ended up injured and in the hospital with brain damage.
It makes me misty just typing it.
Well, supposedly his passive resistance to an order from the crew disrupted the usual flow of handling unpleasant business. The crew had, I gather, informed him that the plane was not going to leave the gate until after he got off, so by passively resisting the "request" or "order" to leave, he was potentially disrupting the flight schedule.
As for the caliber of the goon squad, there is probably some sort of "turf" agreement among various authorities about what duties each is qualified for, and which duties are beneath their station. I bet the outfit who draws the "cabin enforcement" straw is subjected to training for the next few years.
Nonsense. Look I get it, people hate airlines. But you shouldn’t let your dislike of an airline prejudice an analysis of the contract.
Rule 5.G. (thanks, it is 5 not 4) does not use the term “oversold” nor does it use the term “boarding.”
Those terms are used in Rule 25 for purposes of determining whether United met its obligation to passengers under Rule 25.
If you are taking the position that Dao already boarded and that Rule 25 does not apply to him, then fine. United has therefore met the Rule 25 obligation to Dao (which didn’t require anything according to your interpretation of “boarding”) and United is free to use Rule 5.G. to deny Dao his space on the plane.
But you may be wrong in how you are interpreting “boarding.” Perhaps the prevailing use in the industry is that no one is considered “boarded” until the door is sealed and the plane detaches from the gate.
Anyway, Rule 5.G. uses the term “overbooked.” United has a good argument to make that it “booked” the other flight crew onto this flight, resulting in Dao’s flight being “overbooked.”
The issue then becomes, did United properly and completely follow the Rule 25 procedures before resorting to Rule 5.G. to cancel Dao’s space on the airplane? Because if so, not only do they have the legal right as owner of the airplane to remove Dao, but they are not in breach of Dao’s ticket contract in doing so.
Did United follow Rule 25 to the letter? I don’t know. Even if they didn’t have the contractual right to cancel Dao’s space because they didn’t follow Rule 25 to the letter, they STILL have the legal right as owner of the aircraft to remove Dao or anyone else from the airplane even if that means they are breaching his ticket contract, and the only recourse of Dao or any other such person is to sue for money damages for breach of the ticket contract, unless United uses excessive force in removing someone in which case they can get additional damages for that.
It doesn’t interest me whether United is publicly conceding something or not. They are doing what they are now doing for public relations purposes, not strictly a legal analysis.
Absolutely. And separate SEIU union or not, the Chicago Airport Police gets disbanded and airport security is handled by Chicago Police and Feds.
Like how airport security is handled in every other major city in the country, regardless of Chicago graft politics.
And the newest SWAT training will be the 'Cabin Enforcement Squad'. Hut!
Your quote “The Nazi police here would say”
Sounds like you have an enormous grievance, for a person who’s only been here a few days. If you’ve rubbed that many people wrong already, maybe it’s you, not them.
Look up "JetBlue+$90k fine". The fine was for the plane being "boarded" but left at the gate, door open for hours, while JetBlue neglected to tell the passengers they could deplane. I'd argue you are in fact "boarded" once you set foot on the plane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.